Assessment Of Prey Vulnerability Through Analysis Of Wolf Movements And Kill Sites
Abstract
Within predator-prey systems behavior can heavily influence spatial dynamics, and accordingly, the theoretical study of how spatial dynamics relate to stability within these systems has a rich history. However, our understanding of these behaviors in large mammalian systems is poorly developed. To address the relationship between predator selection patterns, prey density, and prey vulnerability, we quantified selection patterns for two fine-scale behaviors of a recovering wolf (Canis lupus) population in Yellowstone National Park, Wyoming, USA. Wolf spatial data were collected between November and May from 1998-1999 until 2001-2002. Over four winters, 244 aerial locations, 522 ground-based telemetry locations, 1287 km of movement data from snow tracking, and the locations of 279 wolf kill sites were recorded. There was evidence that elk (Cervus elaphus) and bison (Bison bison) densities had a weak effect on the sites where wolves traveled and made kills. Wolf movements showed a strong selection for geothermal areas, meadows, and areas near various types of habitat edges. Proximity to edge and habitat class also had a strong influence on the locations where elk were most vulnerable to predation. There was little evidence that wolf kill sites differed from the places where wolves traveled, indicating that elk vulnerability influenced where wolves selected to travel. Our results indicate that elk are more vulnerable to wolves under certain conditions and that wolves are capable…
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Streams and associated channels and ravines may impede elk escape by providing physical obstacles.
“Similarly, streams and associated channels and ravines provide physical obstacles that may impede elk escape (Bergman et al. 2006).”
From Landscape heterogeneity shapes predation in a newly restored predator–prey system (2007) · cites this paper as Bergman et al. 2006
Cites
The Ecology of Fear: Optimal Foraging, Game Theory, and Trophic Interactions
Brown, J. S., Laundre, J. W., & Gurung, M. (1999) · Journal of Mammalogy · doi:10.2307/1383287 · Cited by 1,347 · see citing works
Putting predators back into behavioral predator–prey interactions
Lima, S. L. (2002) · Trends in Ecology & Evolution · doi:10.1016/s0169-5347(01)02393-x · Cited by 748 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Landscape heterogeneity shapes predation in a newly restored predator–prey system
Kauffman, M. J., Varley, N., Smith, D. W., Stahler, D. R., MacNulty, D. R., & Boyce, M. S. (2007) · Ecology Letters · doi:10.1111/j.1461-0248.2007.01059.x · Cited by 350 · see citing works
Wolves, elk, willows, and trophic cascades in the upper Gallatin Range of Southwestern Montana, USA
Ripple, W. J., & Beschta, R. L. (2004) · Forest Ecology and Management · doi:10.1016/j.foreco.2004.06.017 · Cited by 146 · see citing works
WILLOW ON YELLOWSTONE'S NORTHERN RANGE: EVIDENCE FOR A TROPHIC CASCADE?
Beyer, H. L., Merrill, E. H., Varley, N., & Boyce, M. S. (2007) · Ecological Applications · doi:10.1890/06-1254.1 · Cited by 142 · see citing works
Yellowstone’s ungulates after wolves – expectations, realizations, and predictions
White, P. J., & Garrott, R. A. (2005) · Biological Conservation · doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2005.01.048 · Cited by 131 · see citing works
Self-citationWinnie, J. A. (2012) · Ecology · doi:10.1890/11-1990.1 · Cited by 73 · see citing works
Christianson, D., & Creel, S. (2008) · Behavioral Ecology · doi:10.1093/beheco/arn079 · Cited by 63 · see citing works
Self-citationChapter 25 Contrasting Wolf–Ungulate Interactions in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem
Hamlin, K. L., Garrott, R. A., White, P. J., & Cunningham, J. A. (2008) · Terrestrial Ecology · doi:10.1016/s1936-7961(08)00225-x · Cited by 20 · see citing works
Self-citation
- Authors
- Bergman, E. J., Garrott, R. A., Creel, S., Borkowski, J. J., Jaffe, R., & Watson, F. G. R.
- Affiliations
- Montana State University (US)
- California State University, Monterey Bay (US)
- Corresponding author
- Bergman, Eric J.
- Venue
- Ecological Applications
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2006-02
- Volume
- 16
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 273-284
- ISSN
- 1051-0761 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W1967512559
- Cited by
- 142
- References
- 2
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 8 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 7 · 2014: 6 · 2013: 5 · 2012: 10
- FWCI
- 11.13
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Ecological Applications (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Montana State University ScholarWorks (Montana State University) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Wildlife Ecology and Conservation
- Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Animal Ecology and Behavior Studies
- Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Rangeland and Wildlife Management
- Keywords
- wolf predation, prey vulnerability, wolf movement, kill sites, elk, bison, predator-prey interactions, habitat selection, habitat edges, geothermal areas, Yellowstone National Park, wolf recovery
- MeSH terms
- Animals, Deer, Ecology, Environment, Feeding Behavior, Models, Biological, Movement, Population Density, Population Dynamics, Predatory Behavior, Seasons, Time Factors, Wyoming, Bison, Wolves, Food Chain
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review